Overall Rating
  Awesome: 42.61%
Worth A Look: 9.13%
Average: 4.35%
Pretty Bad: 16.96%
Total Crap: 26.96%
12 reviews, 158 user ratings
|
|
| Phantom of the Opera, The (2004) |
by Erik Childress
"People Who Hate The Phantom Menace...You Mean This One, Right?"
|
What a gaudy monstrosity the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s play has turned out to be. Scratch that. Take two. There’s nothing particularly gaudy about any of it. That would suggest something, anything in excess of its value, which on the big screen is a borderline absolute zero. And I’m speaking from the negative side of mathematics. It certainly is a monstrosity, one of the worst filmed musicals I’ve ever seen, and that includes Cop Rock. Where it lacks in clarity, it’s trumped by its absence of any conceivable passion in the performances and inability to forego its stagy incarnation by failing to break its constraints and let it leap off the screen. The only thing leaping will be audiences from their seats for the nearest exit before all semblance of sanity escapes their being.Comparing Phantom to Hollywood’s recent comeback to the musical scene is within a league to which it does not belong or even aspired to. Moulin Rouge was most definitely a gaudy monstrosity; one which I was not especially fond of. But that was more on director Baz Luhrmann’s shoulders for turning much of it into the first subliminal musical with editing so rapid that it was impossible to grab an appreciation for the song numbers. When he slowed down, Kidman and MacGregor were dynamite and the production design was quite wondrous.
Rob Marshall’s Chicago was a far superior example, blending not only great musical numbers, but songs that complemented the overall cynicism of the script and matched with an exuberance by the actors. It didn’t matter if Zellweger was the greatest crooner in the world or how weak Richard Gere could tap dance. They sold it. We bought it. Case closed.
Joel Schumacher’s Phantom suffers in every conceivable department, even the areas of film that should just be automatic fallbacks to the criticisms of script, story, dialogue, acting and direction. The outside of the opera house is a set. That’s plain, simple and impossible to ignore from the very first reveal. There are grander faux opera houses at amusement parks; none of them looking like there could actually be wheels underneath waiting to be removed from its current perch. Color me surprised if a single costume was made for this version and not one lifted from a stage production (high school or otherwise.) The illusion is shattered almost instantaneously and it doesn’t end there.
Having never seen the original theatrical production in any forum, I feel safe in saying that its musical numbers were conducted on a stage. Guess what? So are, at least, half of them in the movie. I mean an actual stage. And the camera is so stoic in their presentation that we yearn for the cinematographer to cough or belch just to nudge the camera by accident. We are watching a stage production for all intents and purposes. It’s one thing to absorb heavy dialogue between interesting characters who do nothing but leave a room, but to sit there and watch lips move to the tune of song and nothing else, we might as well be watching a karaoke competition.
In The Aviator, Howard Hughes learns that you can’t appreciate the speed of flight on film if nothing is behind it to dictate its field of motion. That was a lesson taught in the 1920s and probably mentioned somewhere down the pike in film schools everywhere. As a veteran of nearly 20 films, Schumacher should know the concept of a mooootioooon picture. I’ve heard of a trailer giving away all of the best jokes, but never one that revealed all the camera movements.
But, back to the singing. Emmy Rossum has a voice. That is clear. But a lot of people can sing; yes, even as well as she can. They also know how to emote when pouring your heart and soul into a song. Even if they’re faking it just to give a grander show, it’s more of an effort than Rossum puts forth in displaying her love for Raoul (Patrick Wilson) or her fascination with the Phantom (Gerard Butler). She’s nothing but eyes and lips, like the stare off a beauty shop picture or caught in the hypnotic trance of aliens walking to the tone of “YABBA…DABBA…DOO!”
With half of his face covered, he may have a compensating excuse in the dramatization department, but I would have been more comfortable with Axel Rose singing “Music of the Night.” Butler is a stunningly average singer and clearly that’s not what the Phantom needs. He must exude power and terror combined with empathy and romance. Not mediocre singing skills and a fuzzy agenda wedged between lost love and suppressed artistic ambition. Is that what the Phantom is all about? Because the screenplay by Schumacher and Andrew Lloyd Webber doesn’t have a single note of clarity. I imagined what Antonio Banderas (attached to the film version for years) could have done with the role. Schumacher would have given him no help, but at least there would have been one positive. He was absolutely stunning in Alan Parker’s Evita adaptation, done with style, grace and God forbid, a few chances.
On stage, I could probably submit to the power that audiences who swear by the play feel. It’s easy to get caught in the moment, witnessing live music telling a story on garish sets in a limited setting. Movies are a different entity. They have to work a little harder in its translation to capture the same experience. Is the ending of Mamet’s Oleanna more brutal on the stage or in the four corners of the silver screen? Isn’t the fat lady’s vocals more powerful when you’re within a mere earshot of the decibel’s origin? I have a friend whom I’ve witnessed singing tracks from the Phantom soundtrack. No background music. Just a microphone and her desire to sing it. Without knowing how the songs fit into the story or the meaning of each verse, I found her renditions to be completely stirring and, in retrospect, precisely what is absent.The arguments are already formulated on the Webber Fanboy-and-girl side. They’ve heard it the naysayers for years and are ready to bash critics of the film by calling us anti-musical or anti-Webber. Countering with South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut probably isn’t the answer, but maybe an acknowledgement of Evita ranking very high on my list in 1996 could shut a few up. Bottom line is that theater does not equal cinematic and I’ll be surprised if at least a quarter of the Phantom lovers don’t suffer an outbreak of scurvy watching this debacle. Schumacher mercifully resisted the urge to give the Phantom a nipple-tight costume, but couldn’t resist throwing in a naked ass just to grab a PG-13 rating. I suppose I shouldn’t be complaining, since after experiencing 143 minutes of ASS, what’s one more hole in the film?
 del.icio.us 
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=11360&reviewer=198
originally posted: 12/22/04 16:22:04
![[printer]](/images/icon/printer.gif) printer-friendly format
|
 |
USA
22-Dec-2004 (PG-13)
DVD: 03-May-2005
UK
N/A
Australia
26-Dec-2004
|
|
Articles 
subscribe to this feed
![[AllPosters.com]](/images/icon/ap.gif){kind=icon}
